OUTCOME IN RECIPIENTS OF DUAL KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A novel but controversial method to increase the utilization of aged donor kidneys is the transplantation of both kidneys as a dual transplant. Initial single-center reports demonstrated outcomes similar to single kidneys from younger donors. In this report, we compare outcome in recipients of kidneys from donors > or =54 years of age who received a single kidney transplant reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing Scientific Registry versus a dual kidney transplant reported to the Dual Kidney Registry. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed, comparing four donor and nine recipient and outcome variables between recipients of a single versus a dual transplant between March 1993 and March 1999. RESULTS: Dual versus single transplants from donors > or =54 years of age have a significantly decreased incidence of delayed graft function, and lower serum creatinines up to 2 years after transplant despite having kidneys from significantly older donors with poorer HLA matching. CONCLUSIONS: Dual kidney transplants improve graft performance and outcome in recipients of kidneys from donors > or =54 years of age.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".